Rroma and Rroma
related groups  the result of a forced naturalization, under the pressure
of the politically correct vocabulary

The word
Rroma is used since around
10 years in different official documents adopted by States or international organisations.
This was the legitimate wish of Rroma activists, who
wanted by this means to avoid the prejudices often attached to exonyms like Gypsies, Tsiganes etcNevertheless,
more than a decade after, we could ask ourselves on the results of this change
in the political speech. To make things clear from the beginning, I
would specify that I definitely refuse to take again the old terms, and I am
profoundly attached to the word Rroma, since it is the
proof of the respect for this people. The Rroma never
claimed the right to auto-determination under its common shape. They never
claimed constituting a State. Being designated as Rroma, which is an endonyme,
this is one of the aspects of this right in the eyes of Rroma
activists. But lets go back to the respect for the Rroma,
the use of the endonyme being a proof of it. Since
this word entered in the vocabulary of the international organisations (Council
of Europe, Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe etc), it always has been accompanied by something. One of
the structures of the Council of Europe, for instance, is the
Division Rroma / Gypsies within the Social Cohesion
Department. Lately, it is called Rroma/Gypsies/Travellers.
Within the OSCE, it exists a Contact Point for Rroma and Sinti Issues (CPRSI).
Whom are we talking about ?

It is
well known that Rroma are a minority with a common
origin. They came from Northern India to Europe and a part of them
went further in Americas.Nowadays, there are three distinct groups who
share this Indian origin: Rroma, Sinti
and Kale. The distinction between these three groups is a linguistic one, and
it is due to historical events. Rroma, who live
mostly in Eastern Europe, speak variants of the Rromani language. In spite of the differences between these
variants, the understanding between the speakers is more than satisfactory. The
Sinti speak, they too, the Rromenes, but this language,
highly influenced by the German, is less accessible to the Rroma
than the variants of Rromani language spoken by Eastern Rroma. And finally, the Kale, also
known as Gitanos, have lost the use of their language
due to persecutions under the Spanish monarchy. They conserved, nevertheless,
some words, that they still use sometimes combining them with another language,
like Spanish or Andalous.

The word
Rrom is known and used by
all three groups described above. In Rromani language
it means Rroma man or spouse, while Sinti and Kale only use it with the second meaning.

If we
refer to the criteria of a people, or of a nation, these three groups belong to
the same entity. Actually, it is already proved that they have the same origin
and that they used to speak the same language, which is nowadays still kept
either as a communication tool, or in the memory of this people as a language
that their ancestors spoke. These are some objective elements that prove the unicity of the three groups: Rroma,
Sinti and Kale. There is also a subjective one,
perhaps not as strong as the others, but present, despite of the luck of intervention
for keeping and reinforcing it. Every time that people belonging to different
groups meet, they almost systematically start exchanging between them words
that they know in Rromanes. It is then surprising and
touching to see that even with few common words, they feel belonging to the
same people, while they dont share, very often, neither the same religion, nor
the same social status etc Some Kale (Gitanos)
activists have even learned the Rromani language
these last years, for facilitating the communication with their colleagues from
Eastern Europe.

After
this short description, one could think that the title of this article is
wrong, since Rroma and Rroma related groups is not the result of
a forced naturalisation, but rather another
way to say Rroma, Sinti
and Kale, groups who really are related, but each of them has
some specificities compared to the other. Unfortunately, the title is not
wrong. Actually, Rroma and Rroma related groups, as defined and/or
used by international organisations, covers another reality. The three groups
are, according to the place and the time, more or less included in the Rroma and Rroma related groups category. But the
notion behind this denomination is not at all an ethnic, and even less a
national one. The pressure of the Rroma activists has
not yet been that far. While the vocabulary has changed under this pressure,
the notions have not. Obviously, the language changes much faster than the
mentalities. Used to think in terms of Gypsies or Tsiganes, or Nomads, those who now speak
of Rroma and Rroma and related groups, still have in mind
the Gypsies etc Is this because the
definition of the term Rroma, who came from the Rromani movement, is not clear yet? It is hard to believe
it. In any case, this could not be the only cause, or the most important. There
is something else: the fact that the States used to deal with Gypsies, or Tsiganes, or Nomads, but not with Rroma.If we take
the words Gypsies and Tsiganes (with its variants in
different languages), both of them originate from the majority population and
are result of popular confusion. Gypsies derives from Egypt, because people
believed that Rroma came from Egypt, while Tsiganes comes from the Greek
word Athinganoi, a sect who
circulated in the Balkans some centuries before Rroma
arrive. The majority population continued in this way to call Gypsies or Tsiganes all those who had
something particular: language, lifestyle, professions etc We can say that any
marginal is a potential Gypsy or Tsigane in this context. This
is why Yenisches or Travellers are called Gypsies by
majority population. This is also why Balkano-Egyptians,
Rudars, or Beasi are also
called Tsigani. Actually, it is not
the word in itself that is racist, but rather the notion that it covers and the
way in which the word has been found and used. Then, these groups, with no
other relation between them than the amalgam made by ignorant or racist people,
suffered from discrimination as Tsiganes, not as Rroma. This means that
while dealing with a case of murder by skinheads of a Rudar,
for instance, no distinction would be reasonable by a court. The skinheads
wanted to kill a Tsigan and they did it; they
will never care about some intellectual nuances, since their enemy
are Tsiganes, Jews, and so on But things are quite
different if an international organisation drafts, for example, a
recommendation on education of Rroma children. In
this last case, the use of Rromani language and
culture in the curriculum only is relevant for the Rroma
children, and not for all those who majority call Tsiganes or Gypsies. So that, if the
recommendation concerns the education of Rroma/Gypsies/Travellers
children, it has few chances to be followed by the States in which live Rroma, Balkano-Egyptians and Beasi for example. Actually, the Beasi
have their own language, with no relation with Rromani,
and Balkano-Egyptians have not their own language. It
is then not surprising if a representative of this state states that the unification of Rromani languages is not possible, thus their teaching
neither. Since the Tsigani or the Gypsies are not a people, but
a social group, stigmatized as such by the majority population, it is a non
sense to think about Gypsy language, as it is a non-sense
to use the politically correct vocabulary while using the plural for not discriminating and speak about Rromani languages. And here we are with
what we can call the real problem: or the States are
not willing to change their philosophies on ethnicity, minorities etc, or their
refusal of discrimination make them to follow the racist amalgams who led to
the notions of Gypsies, Tsiganes etc In Europe, the first branch of
the hypothesis is more relevant in West, while the second is relevant
throughout Europe. Isnt then time to remind
that even the term discrimination is not genuinely
pejorative? And for those who still remain reluctant after this, they should
know that all what is needed is some discernment. Finally, isnt this the only way to
respect also the other minorities that have suffered from discrimination as
Gypsies and who want to conserve their own identity? They too, they have the
right of auto-definition, the right to keep their languages, their particularities
in equality with Rroma, and they have not to pay for
this the price of a forced naturalisation. Putting
them into the category Rroma and Rroma related groups means to refuse them this
right, and to impose them, as well as to Rroma, the
status of a social group, characterised by the marginalization.